UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4598

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
SCOTTIE LEE GRAVES,
Defendant Appellant.

No. 08-4599

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
SCOTTIE LEE GRAVES,
Defendant Appellant.

No. 08-6834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.

SCOTTIE LEE GRAVES,

Defendant Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.
James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge.
(1:00-cr-00123-JAB-1; 1:04-cr-00220-JAB1; 1:06-cv-00940-JAB-RAE)

Submitted:

January 14, 2009

Before WILKINSON and

Senior Circuit Judge.

Decided:

MICHAEL,

Circuit

February 19, 2009

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Croutharmel, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant in

Nos. 08-4598; 08-4599. Scottie Lee Graves, Appellant Pro Se in
No. 08-6834.
Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Scottie
terms

of

his

Lee

Graves

supervised

was

charged

release.

At

with

his

violating

supervised

the

release

revocation hearing, Graves admitted that he had committed the

violations as charged.
sentenced

Graves

to

Graves now appeals.

The district court revoked release and

concurrent

eighteen-month

prison

terms.

His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there

are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the
district court abused its discretion in revoking release and
whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Graves has filed a
pro se brief raising additional issues.
Graves
erred

in

initially

revoking

his

contends

supervised

We affirm.
that

the

release.

district
We

court

review

the

district courts decision to revoke supervised release for abuse

of discretion.
Cir. 1999).

United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th

The district court need only find a violation of a

condition of release by a preponderance of the evidence.

18

U.S.C. 3583(e)(3) (2006); United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d

392, 394 (4th Cir. 1999).

In light of Graves admission that he

committed the release violations as charged and the statutory

requirement
Graves,

that

possesses

release
a

be

revoked

controlled

when

substance,

defendant,
see

18

like

U.S.C.

 3583(g)

(2006),

revocation

of

release

was

not

an

abuse

of

discretion.
Graves
unreasonable.
supervised

also
A

release

contends

sentence
will

be

that

imposed
affirmed

his

following
if

it

sentence

is

revocation

of

is

within

applicable statutory range and not plainly unreasonable.

States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir 2006).
our

review

sentence
months.

of

falls
See

the

record

reveals

the

statutory

below
18

U.S.C.

that

Graves

maximum

3583(e)(3)

of

(2006)

the

United
Here,

revocation
twenty-four
(authorizing

revocation sentence of up to two years when underlying offense

is a Class D felony).

Further, the sentence is procedurally

reasonable: the district court considered both the Chapter 7

advisory

policy

statement

range

and

the

18

U.S.C.

(2006) factors that it is permitted to consider.

461 F.3d at 438-40.

3553(a)

See Crudup,

Furthermore, the sentence is substantively

reasonable, for the court adequately explained its reasons for

imposing the concurrent eighteen-month sentences.

See id. at

440.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in these cases and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. *

We therefore affirm.

This court requires that counsel

inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If the

client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

representation.

Counsel=s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served
on

his

client.

Release,

or

Graves

motion

for

Emergency

bail,

and

his

Extraordinary
motion

for

Writ

for

Emergency

Extraordinary Writ for Immediate Modification/Reduction of Term

Imposed are denied.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

The issues Graves raises in his pro se brief are without

merit.